You use the word 'trust', but isn't 'faith' also a very close fit? The word 'faith' has powerful entrenched religious connotations and many of us avoid using it.

I think I made that clear didn't I? (with my very next sentence):

Quote:

I have a faith in astrology being able to guide people, which I relate to the idea that everything is united, but I donít stop to question whether the idea of being guided comes from within or from without.

I wasn't trying to avoid the use of the word faith - I just knew I was going to use it in the next sentence and didn't want my writing to be so boring
I believe in my astrology. I have faith in it. It is not a religion. I don't worship anything and yet (personally speaking) I do have a sense that the whole subject, its philosophy, its history, should be treated with respect. As part of that, I suppose, I don't think it is all about personal gain or even personal growth. I'm uneasy with the idea of it being something which might give us power in ourselves, or power in our relationships. Maybe this is controversial, but I think people should have worked through a lot of those issues for themselves before they are ready to try to understand what makes the world tick.

Quote:
You use the word 'trust', but isn't 'faith' also a very close fit? The word 'faith' has powerful entrenched religious connotations and many of us avoid using it.

I think I made that clear didn't I?

Oh my. It looks like careless enthusiasm on my part. And yet ... .. Your ďfaith in astrology being able to guide peopleĒ does have a safely secular sound to it Ė the faith being in therapeutic benefits, just as we can have faith in our multi-vitamin pill's ability to boost our good health. We're an arm's length from any possible religious feelings here. But this is just one of those minor yet fun side points.

But my point is fairly simple: If you want to approach astrology as a science, there's no reason I can think of not to. If you want to approach it as a philosophy, I can think of no reason not to.

And there is the choice – the choice now forced upon us – that earlier astrologers didn't have to make: Science (as we now know it) or philosophy (and let's include religion with that). Some folks came along in the late 17th and 18th centuries and rewrote it all for us. They created severe distinctions where there were none before. And we now dutifully follow along: Choice A or choice B.

Those were the terms set forth at the beginning of this thread - scientific astrology is okay, other than that, the church sees it as some kind of rival religion and is opposed to it. Fortunately those terms haven't been forced upon me. I hope they haven't been forced upon you, either.

Do you feel that only those who believe in God, or gods, or whatever should be allowed to study astrology? That it shouldn't be allowed as a secular science? Because the world does have secular sciences in it now, and whether you like it or not isn't going to make them go away.

I don't. And even back in the middle ages and before, there were those who said that it was as holy to study the works of creation as to search for God in metaphysics - there was no reason everybody needed to think the same way. I'm in agreement with that statement.

And as far as what kind of person you are, whether you know there's a god or not really doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. Something that all of us who've spent any time in this world have realised, I tihnk. Nor should it be a qualifier as to whether you can study astrology.

As to the 'faith' part, that's not a concept in all languages, including the one I grew up with - there isn't a word for 'religion', either. Not all approaches to the holy are western, nor are all of them binary.

But I see no reason to forbid astrology to the religious, just the same as I see no reason astrology should be forbidden to someone on account of lack of religion. One true wayism in astrology scares me; I've seen too much of it. There are many people who hold many different beliefs about astrology and about the divine who work in astrology. Who are you or I to say that only certain beliefs and certain types of astrology are acceptable?

If it pleases you to reduce that to binary thinking, then that's you're prerogative. But it's certainly not what I meant. And I'm very, very glad I don't live in a place where religious belief of some sort is coerced, nor am I forced to see astrology in one particular light.

I don't see how someone else seeing astrology as a tool, a science, a ghost-in-the-cognitive-machine, an art, utter nonsense, or anything else threatens your views or practise of astrology.

Hi Papretis,
There is however some scientific evidence. The studies of Gauquelin were done in a scientific set-up. He used statistical studies of relationships between planets and professions like Saturn and doctors, http://www.tig12.net/spip/Michel-et-Francoise-Gauquelin.html (the page is in French but it shows a graph derived from statistical study. He also found a relationship between Mars and sports(wo)men. Gauquelin was disputed by sceptics but later studies proved that there is some effect, http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/koll1ge.pdf (in English, by Nick Kollerstrom).

Hi Eddy,

yes, Iím familiar with the Gauquelin studies. Thereíre a few problems with them: one is that they are the only ones of producing real results though there are a lot of statistical studies about astrology over the last few decades. The Gauquelin study gave results only with planets in certain sectors (that should according to the traditional rules be weak, not strong!), though the Gauquelins studied a lot of other astrological factors too including signs and aspects, but they didnít find anything in them. Michel Gauquelin had a conflicting attitude toward his own findings all the way. Most of the time Gauquelin didn't want to call his results astrology at all.

Olivia wrote:

I'm neither western nor Christian, Kirk, and the point is that Papretis' practise of astrology is being impeded by church law, and if I followed his post correctly, he does not wish to leave the church or to be put under a ban of excommunication.

This is not exactly the case. Though the Orthodox Church has a negative attitude towards astrology, itís unlikely that I would be put under a ban of excommunication would I continue practicing it. No one is coercing me to leave astrology, I donít live in that kind of environment or culture. I have my own brains, and there are several reasons why Iím questioning the practice of astrology, of which my faith is only one.

Deb wrote:

Anyway, Papretis, I hope you can resolve your dilemma because I will certainly miss you if you feel you have to let astrology go for the sake of balance in your life. Even without the religious dilemma, we sometimes have to put this subject aside; and if the motivation wanes, it is not possible to try to manufacture the interest. If you have to try to find a reason to continue your study, then there is no reason, because the beautiful, appealing aspect of it must have stopped seeming beautiful and appealing, and for some reason, there is a need to withdraw and make a change.

(If it were possible to manufacture the interest, Iíd advise you to be like Ramesey, purging yourself every now and again with a rant on this site against the trashy horary astrologers like me )

This was funny . You put it very well when you wrote that there is a need to withdraw and make a change. You mentioned in an interview that there has been a period for you too when you left astrology altogether for several years, so I think you understand what Iím talking about. One of the most difficult things is that Iíve met some really wonderful people with astrology, and Iím not sure how to continue those relationships if the main bond disappears. I know from experience that it doesnít always succeed. But Ramesey's option might seem worth considering...

You mentioned in an interview that there has been a period for you too when you left astrology altogether for several years, so I think you understand what Iím talking about.

Absolutely. And I have to say that the last time I had a parting with astrology (1998/9 - 2002/3) it was, in my mind, a permanent parting of the ways. During those four years I couldn't have told you what sign the Sun was in, even if I'd thought about it (which I didn't). I enjoyed the experiences that I had in those years, which was out of contact with all astrology and all astrologers. (Some astrologers, however, never quite left me in spirit, and certain phrases from certain conversations came to mind at times when they were the perfect answer to some problem or other).

I didn't really make a plan to come back to astrology, it just happened. I don't think I'll be parting company with astrology again, but whatever you choose for yourself, just keep your faith in life itself. Or, in the words of Monty Python, and to keep Kirk happy, ""Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth."...

Here I am dragging Deb around again. I got this from the horary forum.

Quote:

If it is a regular trip for you, then the travel involved is a 3rd house matter. The 3rd house signifies regular journeys, and although this involves a flight, there is no sense of you journeying into the unknown. The same would apply even if you were travelling between Britain and Australia, if that journey was made on a regular basis.

The 9th house relates to the idea of journeying to places that are strange, remote, and unfamiliar. It signifies those places where you feel that sense of remoteness from home.

It was obviously written for a different matter completely, but I think you can see why it appealed to me in this context concerning astrology and the 9th house. If we routinely keep astrology close to home as merely a method to classify and explain our familiar terrain with our preferred techniques, then we miss the flight to the ďstrange, remote, and unfamiliarĒ. The deepest purpose of astrology is to take us out and away from the usual and easily named.

In case it wasn't clear in previous posts: I'm not equating astrology with religion, but saying that they have a common force, urge and desire behind them. That urge to expand beyond the familiar is based in the 9th house and its dexter trine to the ASC.

For those of you who are Thomas Moore fans (Care of the Soul, and so much more) Ė I agree that a flight to that which is beyond and above is only part of the human picture. We also need to sink and settle down into the known, the familiar and the everyday, which Moore says is so important for the soul. This model of the 9th house as an upward spiritual movement does seem to favor spiritual flight. Perhaps that is a bias which has been built in to Western astrology and which makes us prone to experiencing astrology only in our heads rather than in our heads and bones. Do we need to spend more time with the 3rd house Goddess/Moon tradition and place astrology firmly in the sublunar world under her watchful eye? A feminine, embodied astrology. The kind of astrology that makes you dance naked in the garden rather than sit in front of a computer ruining your eyes and filling your head with notions of this and that, notions that can be used to counter your opponent's 'that and this'.

For me, the purpose of "astrology" is its practical use for macrocosmic analytical work. To aid in understanding the subtle influences of the dynamic environment upon a wide variety of subjects and issues, personal and mundane, and to be enabled to make well informed prognoses about various potential outcomes. My primary use of macrocosmic analysis ("astrology") is in the field of astrotherapeutics, where understanding the dynamic influences of time (quality of hours, days, etc), of space (signs, directions, degree's of space, etc) and of things in space (planets, stars) is of primary importance when the goals are healing and progress toward an optimal state of being.

I feel somewhat hesitant straying onto this part of the Forum. This thread appears closest to my query, so it seems more appropriate to continue this than start a new thread.

I have been asking myself what is astrology's purpose and what are its bounds?

The practical examples that come to mind are:

Sports astrology: Should astrology expect to predict the result when the red teams plays the blue team at a certain time? If it could and this information became commonplace would astrology create a circumstance that could affect whether the game was even played? We would all know the winner, so why bother playing the game?

Mundane: Should astrology expect to predict when and where a natural disaster will occur? Do we potentially change fate if we could have populations moving out of earthquake areas, etc?

Is it reasonable to question if the limits of astrology should not extend to changing fate? (as in the two examples above) I know this raises the question of what is fate, etc, etc and how it relates to individuals. However, I still ask myself what is astrology's purpose and what bounds should there be in making predictions?

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated